This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]On: 13 March 2013, At: 10:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Metaphor and SymbolPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20

Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering,Metaphors, and the Argument FromCatastropheBrigitte Nerlich a & Rusi Jaspal aa University of NottinghamVersion of record first published: 12 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Brigitte Nerlich & Rusi Jaspal (2012): Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering,Metaphors, and the Argument From Catastrophe, Metaphor and Symbol, 27:2, 131-147

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.665795

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Metaphor and Symbol, 27: 131–147, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1092-6488 print / 1532-7868 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10926488.2012.665795

Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors,and the Argument From Catastrophe

Brigitte Nerlich and Rusi Jaspal

University of Nottingham

Geoengineering the climate by reflecting sunlight or extracting carbon dioxide from the atmo-sphere has attracted increasing attention from natural scientists, social scientists, policy makersand the media. This article examines promotional discourse related to geoengineering from the1980s to 2010. It asks in particular how this option for dealing with the problems posed by cli-mate change were framed through the use of conceptual and discourse metaphors and whether onecan argue that these are metaphors we “live by” or metaphors we might “die by.” Findings showthat an overarching argument from catastrophe was bolstered by three conceptual master-metaphors,namely “THE PLANET IS A BODY,” “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE,” and “THE PLANET IS APATIENT/ADDICT ,” linked to a variety of discourse metaphors, older conceptual metaphors, andclichés. This metaphorical landscape began to shift while the article was being written and will haveto be closely monitored in the future.

Geoengineering the climate involves the “deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s cli-mate system in order to moderate global warming” (Shepherd, 2009). Two major approaches togeoengineering are reflecting sunlight away from the planet or extracting carbon dioxide fromthe atmosphere. A small-scale test of so-called solar-radiation management, funded by vari-ous UK research councils, was announced in September 2011, entitled Stratospheric ParticleInjection for Climate Engineering (SPICE; Natural Environment Research Council, 2011). Thetest should have started in October 2011 but has now been postponed to April 2012. Followingthis and other events and reports (e.g., Bipartisan Policy Centre report, 2011), public debate aboutgeoengineering as one way of dealing with the problems posed by climate change is increasingat present. But how did this debate start, when did it start and who started it in the first place?And how was geoengineering the climate initially framed? These are some of the questionsthat we attempt to address in this article. We examine how geoengineering was promoted as anoption for dealing with climate change or global warming and how this promotional activity waslinguistically framed or engineered.

Discussions about geoengineering the climate have been going on since the 1970s (Marchetti,1977), when climate change itself slowly emerged as an issue in scientific literature. They becamea more prominent topic for media coverage during 2006 and 2007, that is, at the height of recent

Address correspondence to Brigitte Nerlich, Institute for Science and Society, School of Sociology and Social Policy,University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. E-mail: brigitte.nerlich@nottingham.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

132 NERLICH AND JASPAL

policy and media attention to climate change (Grundmann & Krishnamurthy, 2010). In 2006,for example, Paul Crutzen, a Nobel prize winner, atmospheric chemist, and coiner of the term“anthropocene,” published an article in Climatic Change, in which he argued that an “escaperoute” was needed if global warming began to run out of control (Crutzen, 2006, p. 216).In 2009 the UK’s Royal Society published a report on geoengineering entitled “Geoengineeringthe climate: Science, governance and uncertainty” (Shepherd et al., 2009), which was widelydiscussed in the traditional media and the blogosphere.

Geoengineering as climate modification, or as some call it now, “climate remediation”(Bipartisan Policy Center, 2011), has some of its roots in attempts to modify the weather, whichreach back to the mid-nineteenth century when the U.S. military toyed with the idea of usingweather as a weapon, and the mid-twentieth century when this became again a political topic inthe context of the cold war (see Fleming 2006, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Bonnheim, 2010). One ofthose involved in this enterprise, Edward Teller, wrote an article entitled “The Planet Needs aSunscreen” (Teller, 1997).

Now that geoengineering is beginning to be taken more seriously yet again by some pol-icy makers and has gradually entered the public sphere, social scientists and philosophers havestarted to debate its social and ethical implications (see Gardiner, 2011b; Corner & Pidgeon,2010; Corner, Parkhill, & Pidgeon, 2011), its implications for responsible innovation (Stilgoe,2011), as well as studying public attitudes and perceptions. However, the use of metaphors asframing devices remains under-explored in existing social sciences research into geoengineering.This is an important lacuna in the literature, given that “as knowledge of geoengineering propos-als proliferates, the metaphors that emerge in the public discourse . . . will be telling” (Corner &Pidgeon, 2010, p. 31).

Despite the increasing attention paid to geoengineering by natural scientists, social scientists,policy makers and parts of the media, knowledge about geoengineering amongst the generalpublic is still relatively low. As Holly Buck (2010a), one of the first to study media coverageof geoengineering, has pointed out, according to a recent US poll, “74% of respondents hadnever heard of geoengineering—and only 3% of the respondents had a correct idea about what itactually is” (Leiserowitz, 2010; National Environment Research Council, 2010). Buck goes onto quote Leiserowitz as saying that the “first impression, frame, and narrative has yet to be set”(Buck, 2010b, p. 1). Another study by Mercer, Keith, and Sharp (2011) has shown that publicunderstanding may be somewhat higher but stresses that “public opinions are just forming” and“thus all reported results are sensitive to changes in framing, future information on risks andbenefits, and changes to context” (p. 1).

We argue that the core narrative frame setting of geoengineering, which has been going on forquite some time, has consolidated recently. There have however been recent attempts at frame-shifting which will have to be examined in the future, especially after the protests provoked bythe SPICE project in 2011.

Using metaphor analysis, this paper aims to explore the way geoengineering was framed,or, as one might say, linguistically engineered, between 1988 and 2010. We ask whether themetaphors used are “metaphors we live by” or may be “metaphors we die by” (see Romaine,1996), and we reflect on some of the social and ethical implications of this metaphorical fram-ing.Qualitative approaches to metaphor attend to social context in all its complexity and fluidity,focussing upon the localised context in which the metaphor appears (Lyons & Coyle, 2007).To that extent, our small, qualitative study complements research carried out by Buck (2010a),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 133

who used content analysis to study a large corpus of English language news and online debatesabout geoengineering between 1990 and 2010.

GEOENGINEERING AND METAPHOR

Geoengineering is a highly speculative and highly abstract technological intervention, or rathera raft of possible interventions, in the Earth’s climate. It therefore may appear to be a purelytechnological problem. However, it is also, and perhaps even more so, a societal and an ethicalissue. How it is metaphorically, argumentatively and even visually framed can have deep eth-ical implications which need to be scrutinized. We focus here on metaphor which enables usto see and understand one thing as another or one thing in terms of another. In some respectsmetaphor, a tool we use to think and act with, is a linguistic technology that needs as much ethi-cal oversight as the technologies we “see through” it, such as geoengineering. Metaphors are themind’s eyes and society’s tools. They provide us with visions of the world and instruments tochange it.

As Ivor Armstrong Richards, a sometimes forgotten founding father of metaphor theory,remarked, a command of metaphor plays a role in ”the control of the world that we make forourselves to live in” (1936, pp. 135–136), an issue that is of prime importance in the contextof climate change. Geoengineering is one perspective or lens through which to see or frame thefuture of the world that we make for ourselves to live in. For some this implies control overor conquest of “the climatic future” (Hulme, 2008b). This vision of the future relies “implic-itly or explicitly, upon ideas of control and mastery, whether of the planet, of global governanceor of individual and collective behaviour” (p. 5). Hulme goes on to say that these “attempts at‘engineering’ future climate seem a degree utopian and brash. Understanding the cultural dimen-sions of climate discourses offers a different way of thinking about how we navigate the climaticfuture” (p. 5).

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In this article we aim to understand the way that geoengineering was, in some sense, linguisti-cally engineered or “framed” between 1988 and 2010. Using a qualitative approach to metaphoranalysis, we chart the metaphorical, and therefore also cultural, signposts or pointers used todirect us into or away from a future world controlled by climate engineering, and reflect uponsome of the social and ethical implications of the metaphorical framing of geoengineering.

METHOD

The newspaper database LexisNexis was searched with the key words “geoengineering” and“climate,” with no start date but with an end date of 31 December 2010 (that is, before themore recent protest movements related to SPICE, mentioned in the introduction). LexisNexisAcademic (www.lexisnexis.com) contains full-text access to more than 350 newspapers from theU.S. and around the world collected from around 1985 onwards. The corpus for this analysis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

134 NERLICH AND JASPAL

was derived through first searching All English News, which retrieved over 1200 articles, andthen selecting one qualitatively manageable sub-corpus, Industry Trade Press, which consistedof 103 articles (of which 39 appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist and the restin 25 other outlets such as Carbon Control News, Environment and Energy Daily, Public UtilitiesFortnightly and so on).

We chose this corpus of what one might call the proselytising and popularising press articlesas it is possibly here where an initial framing, albeit a positive one, of geoengineering mighthave emerged. This will, of course, in the future have to be compared to press articles and onlinevoices that are perhaps more critical of geoengineering.

We examined articles published between 1988 and 2010, as 1988 was the first year when theterm “geoengineering” was used in our corpus (in a reference to Marchetti, 1977). Coincidentally,1988 was a salient date in climate change debates and may be regarded as the point at which cli-mate change entered the socio-political domain in English speaking countries (Jaspal & Nerlich,in press), for a variety of social, political and geological reasons (see Hulme, 2009: Hulme &Turnpenny, 2004). It was also the beginning of what Hulme (2008b) calls the dominant fram-ing of climate change as a purely physical phenomenon. As a problem frame this then invitesphysical or technological solutions, such as geoengineering.

After controlling for duplicates, 91 articles remained. This small sample was chosen so as tomake a qualitative (metaphor) analysis feasible (Lyons & Coyle, 2007; Cameron & Maslen,2010a, 2010b). All 91 articles were reviewed by the two authors and metaphorical descrip-tions of geoengineering and arguments related to them were extracted, compared between theresearchers, and ordered into groups and patterns until consensus was achieved.

Our decision procedure for the identification of metaphors is based on older research into“conceptual” metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and more recent research into “discourse”metaphors (Zinken, Hellsten, & Nerlich, 2008). Discourse metaphors are relatively stablemetaphorical projections that function as key framing devices within a particular discourse over acertain period of time. They are conceptually grounded but their meaning is also shaped by theiruse at a given time and in the context of a debate about a certain topic, in this case geoengineering.We tried to identify salient discourse metaphors in the first instance and then link them to morelinguistically hidden conceptual metaphors. We regard conceptual metaphors as “fundamental”in two ways; as the conceptual ground in which discourse metaphors are partially rooted; and astop-level or overarching or master-metaphors. We did not extract what one might call lower-levelconceptual metaphors such as the use of the word “give” in “give an answer,” for instance. Ourpurpose was to find those metaphorical framings that might have the most political and perfor-mative force in the discourse surrounding geoengineering. We see framing as “the process bywhich a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a politicalissue or public controversy” (Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997, p. 221).

Frames make us see and act upon the world in specific ways. They create visions and expec-tations, which, as the sociologist Nik Brown puts it, can “mobilize the future into the present”(Brown, 2003, p. 3) (or in the case of geoengineering mobilize actions to avert a future that isframed as catastrophic). They can be used to orientate users (whether as institutions, groups orindividuals) to particular possibilities for action (e.g. invest in small feasibility projects), or awayfrom them, and thus have an effect on material economic investment (Nerlich & Halliday, 2007),and in the case of geoengineering, on the survival of the human species or the type of world wewant to live, or, indeed, die in.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 135

This can, of course also be achieved through arguments. Whereas metaphors invite mappingsfrom one domain of experience, say, of sunscreens onto another, say, geoengineering, so argu-ments invite (very roughly speaking) a conceptual mapping between a statement and a supposedreason for accepting a statement or between a premise and a conclusion. In his book Argumentsand Metaphors in Philosophy, Daniel Cohen (2004) argues that metaphors are narratives, shortstories that invite interpretation and action. This narrative force of metaphors is enhanced whenthey are embedded in or used in conjunction with arguments, which themselves tell stories thatneed interpretation, and in principle need to be acted upon.

In the following we shall not go more deeply into argument-theory but discuss a certainprevailing argument for geoengineering as part of its overall metaphorical framing.

ANALYSIS

The present section outlines the following broad themes, which emerged from the qualitativemetaphor analysis of the corpus: (1) “Geoengineering as a techno-fix”; (2) “Geoengineeringas a medical fix”; (3) “Geoengineering as Plan B”; and (4) “Metaphors and arguments ofdiscontent.” Metaphors and arguments will be discussed mainly in a chronological order,with the exception of metaphors and arguments of discontent. An overview of the con-ceptual and discourse metaphors identified in the study is presented systematically in theAppendix.

Geoengineering as a Techno-fix and the Argument From Catastrophe

Although early articles in the corpus discussed geoengineering in a context of emerging aware-ness of the dangers posed by climate change, they remained very factual and what one could call“bland.” We did not detect any use of discourse metaphors to persuade readers of the rightnessor wrongness of geoengineering. The focus was on technical detail, on the one hand, and onpersonalities, on the other.

The first article that contains a suite of discourse metaphors for geoengineering was writtenby Nicola Jones (2000) for New Scientist and entitled “Sunblock.” Curiously, no reference ismade to Edward Teller’s influential 1997 article. Jones’ article talks about “a dimmer switchon the sun,” of the installation of “a dimmer switch on daylight,” of “regulating our daily doseof sunlight,” and of giving us “a global thermostat” in order to cool the planet threatened byglobal warming. The discourse metaphors “Geoengineering is applying sunblock to the planet”and “Geoengineering is manipulating the planet’s thermostat” are rooted in two overarchingconceptual or master metaphors, namely “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE” (car, thermostaticheating system, computer, etc., that needs cybernetic fixing or controlling) and “THE PLANETIS A BODY” (that needs to be protected from harm).

These metaphors in turn are linked to an argument that is also metaphorically framed, andthat we encountered in many other incarnations throughout the corpus (flanked by metaphors andextended analogies), namely that geoengineering is needed if we “can’t plug the flow of carboninto the atmosphere” (here humanity’s carbon emissions are conceptualised as flowing into the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

136 NERLICH AND JASPAL

atmosphere like dirty planetary bathwater, but bathwater that cannot be stopped by just puttingin a plug). However, more critically, geoengineering is also described as just a “fix,” or morenegatively still as a way “to dig a deeper grave” for the planet and as a “runaway technology”over which we may lose control. These and other metaphors that deviate from the mainstreampositive techno-fix metaphors will be discussed in a following separate section.

Some of the key figures in the field of geoengineering (such as Ken Caldeira, BalaGovindasamy, Edward Teller, Lowell Wood, and Michael MacCracken) are mentioned in manyarticles in our corpus. As Buck has shown, these and other scientists, such as David Keith, belongto what science writer Eli Kintisch refers to in his 2010 book Hack the Planet, as the “Geoclique”(Buck, 2010b, p. 7). In another article, Buck (2010a) points out, “This is a pretty interesting situ-ation, where a small group of people has power to really frame a topic, at least in the mass mediaor traditional press” (p. 20).

The next important discourse metaphor emerges in an article for Public Utilities Fortnightly(Burr, 2007), based on an interview with Caldeira about “some radical ideas for fighting globalwarming.” Here older conceptual metaphors, such as “DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMINGIS WAR” (“war on climate change,” “fighting climate change”; M. J. Cohen, 2011), are reac-tivated in the context of geoengineering by a link to an image well-known from the cold war,namely the political “panic button,” which becomes the “Climate Panic Button” in the article’sheadline.

This article also contains the first major attestation of what one may call the “master argu-ment” used to promote geoengineering, which, in this instance, can be summarized as “We shouldavoid geoengineering if possible, but we need it in our toolbox in case of catastrophe” (Burr,2007, p. 19). Here the metaphor of geoengineering as a techno-fix or a tool in our political toolboxis embedded in an argument structure, which has been neatly summarised elsewhere (Gardiner,2010). This argument can be called the argument from catastrophe or argument from necessity.Gardiner calls it, using the “DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IS WAR” metaphor, the “armthe future” argument or AFA:

If there is a presumption against geoengineering, how might this be met? One promising approach isbased on the general idea that “we may reach the point at which [geoengineering] is the lesser of twoevils.” This idea has been influential in discussions about geoengineering for climate change sincethe earliest days, and has appealed to both its enthusiasts and its detractors. . . . The Core Proposaloffers one kind of lesser evil argument, and so appears to fit neatly into this framework. As we haveseen, the basic structure of this argument seems to be as follows:(AFA1) Reducing global emissions is by far the best way to address climate change.(AFA2) In the last fifteen years or so, there has been little progress on reducing emissions.(AFA3) There is little reason to think that this will change in the near future.(AFA4) If very substantial progress on emissions reduction is not made soon, then at some point(probably forty years or more into the future) we may end up facing a choice between allowingcatastrophic impacts to occur, or engaging in geoengineering.(AFA5) These are both bad options.(AFA6) But geoengineering is less bad.(AFA7) Therefore, if we are forced to choose, we should choose geoengineering.(AFA8) But if we do not start to do serious scientific research on geoengineering options soon, thenwe will not be in a position to choose it should the above scenario arise.(AFA9) Therefore, we need to start doing such research now. (Gardiner, 2010, p. 9)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 137

This argument is used more explicitly in an article by David Chandler (2007) for New Scientist.The article is entitled (echoing Teller, 1997) “A Sunshade for the Planet.” Here we find thediscourse metaphor “Geoengineering is building a sunshade for the planet,” which is linked tothe conceptual metaphor “THE PLANET IS A BODY.” The subtitle of the article contains theargument itself: “If we can’t stop global warming, as a last resort, researchers are devising waysto cool the planet by shading it from the sun” (also echoing Crutzen, 2006). As Chandler goeson to point out, “Fortunately, if the worst comes to the worst, scientists still have a few tricks uptheir sleeve.” Here the techno-fix metaphor is reframed as a magic trick.

In September 2007 Caldeira is quoted in an article for Aerospace America (David, 2007). Inthis quotation he uses a technology-based analogy (linked to the conceptual metaphor “THEPLANET IS A MACHINE”) to support the master argument derived from aeroplane safetyengineering. He is quoted as saying:

I hope I never need a parachute, but if my plane is going down in flames, I sure hope I have aparachute handy. . . . I hope we’ll never need geoengineering schemes, but if climate catastropheoccurs, I sure hope we will have thought through our options carefully.

Equally, in an article for New Scientist published in February 2009, Caldeira is quoted again assaying, this time without using an analogy: “If you wait for a climate catastrophe then you needto deploy fairly full-scale fairly quickly which means you won’t have time to look at the risks”(Brahic, 2009).

Over the following years techno-fix metaphors continue to be used alongside more extendedmedical and safety analogies, which will be discussed below. The latter are used mostly byscientists in the context of elaborating the master argument.

The most pervasive metaphorical frame or discourse metaphor was initially“GEOENGINEERING IS BUILDING A SUNSHADE FOR THE PLANET” (based itselfon the overarching conceptual metaphor “THE PLANET IS A BODY”). The word sunshadeappeared 29 times in the corpus and was used in headlines three times. The second most populardiscourse metaphor was that of the thermostat, a pattern of discourse metaphorical framingsthat can be summarised as “Geoengineering is manipulating the earth’s thermostat” (linked tothe conceptual metaphor “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE”), and the word thermostat was usedseven times in the corpus. It was qualified by adjectives such as global, adjustable, planet wideor used with action verbs such as tweak, turn down and so on.

These techno-fix metaphors are surrounded by the quasi-metaphorical use of fix as a verb(e.g., fix our atmosphere, quest to fix, how to fix), fixing as a gerund (e.g., fixing the sky, fixing theweather, fixing the climate), and as a noun (e.g., geoengineering fix, engineering fix, technologicalfix, fix to global warming, quick and easy fix, short-term fix, quick fix, messy fix).

This framing is linked to the use of another important metaphor, that of a toolkit or tool-box (useful, powerful, invaluable). Although fixing the climate can be read non-metaphoricallyas managing the climate, the surrounding metaphors, especially that of the toolbox, makea non-metaphorical reading almost impossible. What happens instead is that climate isframed as an object, such as a car, that can be fixed or repaired using technological toolsto do so (“Geoengineering is repairing the planet”). The emerging discourse metaphor is“Geoengineering is a tool in scientists’ toolbox.” As repairing a car is nowadays easy androutine, fixing the climate is framed as easy or routine and within the grasp of scientists andengineers. Common-sense knowledge of technology and engineering in particular is therefore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

138 NERLICH AND JASPAL

the most important source domain from which metaphors, as well as analogies are drawn toframe geoengineering as the metaphorical target domain.

At the very end of 2009 a new type of discourse metaphor emerged, rooted in the “THEPLANET IS A MACHINE” metaphor, namely that of “Geoengineering is hacking the planet.”In this case the machine is not a car or mechanical engine but a computer or digital engine.Science journalists like Eli Kintisch begin to use the metaphor of “‘hacking’ the climate” (“LifeAfter Copenhagen,” 2009). This is even extended to calling small-scale field experiments “micro-hacks.” Here the planet is still seen a machine that can be fixed (like a car, using a wrench orlike a heating system, using a thermostat), but it is a special machine, a computer, which can befixed using hacking, in the positive sense of that term, as an inelegant but effective solution to acomputing problem.

The discourse metaphor of hacking the planet/climate was used around the time of theAsilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, held March 22–26,2009, which itself was modelled on the seminal 1975 Asilomar Conference on recombinantDNA. The metaphor became famous when Kintisch, a reporter for Science Magazine, publishedhis book Hack the Planet in March 2010 (Kintisch, 2010). Geoengineering was then being dis-cussed in the context of increasing climate-change denial following “Climategate” (see Nerlich,2010; Washington & Cook, 2011), as the belief by climate-change sceptics or deniers that globalwarming is a “hoax” could halt the technology. As an editorial in New Scientist pointed out,“If that were to happen with geoengineering, our escape route [a metaphor used by Crutzenin 2006] would turn into a roadblock” (“To hack the planet, first win trust,” 2010). Here theubiquitous conceptual metaphor “SCIENCE IS A JOURNEY” is used creatively to argue forgeoengineering.

Geoengineering as a Medical Fix

“To hack the planet, first win trust” (2010) quotes one of the major players in the field, StephenSchneider (1996, 2008), who was one of the first to use an extended medical metaphor or analogyto reframe the argument from catastrophe and to view the planet through the lens of addiction,withdrawal, medical treatment and so on, a framing that became quite prominent in the debateabout geoengineering: If you have a heroin addict, the correct treatment is hospitalisation, therapyand a long rehab. But if they absolutely refuse, methadone is better than heroin” (quoted inChandler, 2007, p. 43).

Schneider’s argument (Chandler, 2007) is that we are addicted to burning carbon fossil fuels.To deal with this addiction we can either spend a lot of time and money on rehabilitation or,when things are too bad, go for replacing the addictive substance by a replacement. This analogyimplies that geoengineering is a real option in managing anthropogenic climate change. It islinked to the overarching conceptual metaphor “THE PLANET IS A PATIENT” which itself islinked to the broader metaphor “THE PLANET IS A BODY.”

In this context the older discourse metaphor of a “sunscreen,” previously also readable as“sunshade,” becomes medicalised, as you “apply “sunscreen” to the whole planet,” conceptu-alising the earth as a human body that needs medical protection. Schneider also medicalisesother metaphors and clichés, such as using geoengineering as a “last resort” or as an “insurancepolicy”: “We’re not going to implement it . . . but we certainly have to know what’s possible.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 139

It’s like emergency back-up surgery: you never want to do it, but you still have to practice it” (asquoted in Chandler, 2007, p. 42).

An article in Aerospace America (David, 2007) speaks of manipulating “the environment ina healing way” (p. 32). These medical metaphors and analogies are all linked to the discoursemetaphor “Geoengineering is applying medical treatment to the planet,” which itself is linkedto the conceptual metaphors “THE PLANET IS A BODY” and the “PLANET IS A PATIENT.”

Another important member of the “Geoclique,” David Keith also uses a medical analogy: “Itis ‘like chemotherapy,’ Keith said. ‘No one wants to have it . . . but we all want the ability to dochemotherapy and know its risks should we find ourselves with cancer’ ” (Howell, 2010).

Some scientists combined the techno-fix and medical framing of geoengineering and createdmixed metaphors. Caldeira, for example, is quoted in an article entitled “Climate change: Ageoengineering fix?” (David, 2007, p. 32) as saying: “If we become addicted to a planetarysunshade, we could experience a painful withdrawal if our fix was suddenly cut off,” or CatherineBrahic (2009b, p. 7) writing for New Scientist: “Clouds that are ‘doped’ in this way should intheory act as sunshades.” Here the word “fix” is mapped onto two conceptual domains at thesame time, that of technology and that of addiction (i.e., “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE” and“THE PLANET IS A PATIENT”). Geoengineering is metaphorically viewed as a techno-medicalproject.

Beside these older metaphors and metaphor mixes, some other metaphors (or rather oldclichés) emerge towards the end of our survey period. When reporting began about the RoyalSociety’s activities in the field of geoengineering a new metaphor entered the discourse, namely“Earth’s Plan B,” the title of Brahic’s (2009a) article in New Scientist. The subtitle ties this in withthe master argument: “We may soon have no choice but to fiddle with the climate—but are weready?” The Plan B metaphor was mostly used with reference to the work by the Royal Societyand by Tim Lenton from the University of East Anglia and the Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.

Geoengineering as Plan B

The Plan B metaphor (also back up plan) was used extensively by John Shepherd, chair of theRoyal Society group that prepared the 2009 report, when interacting with the media and he alsolinked it to the master argument. However, he also used the master argument in a different way,not only to persuade policy makers that something needs to be done, but also to persuade “thepublic” that something needs to be done. The Royal Society report was partly based on focusgroup research as it wanted to explore the “moral hazard argument” related to geoengineering,namely that if you are insured against something, you may behave in more risky ways, in thiscase burn more fossil fuels. The moral hazard argument is linked to the discourse metaphor“GEOENGINEERING IS AN INSURANCE POLICY” (on the shortcomings of this argument,see Gardiner, 2011b). However, based on the results from the focus group research, Shepherd(2009) argues that mentioning “geoengineering” might actually be beneficial in terms of publicengagement with climate change. He wrote an article on this topic for New Scientist entitled “Domention the ‘G’ word: Fears that the mere mention of geoengineering might undermine supportfor emissions reductions appear to be unfounded”:

Encouragingly, our study suggests that introducing the idea of geoengineering into the discussioncould help close this perceived gap [between the scale of the problem and the ability to address it]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

140 NERLICH AND JASPAL

and spur some people to take greater action to reduce their carbon footprint. This appears to bebecause geoengineering puts the reality of climate change into perspective. . . . the very notion thatsomething as drastic as geoengineering may be required dramatically underlines the seriousness ofthe problems as one member of the council of the Royal Society remarked later, if we really need toconsider actions like these, we must be in serious trouble. (p. 24)

This implies that the argument from catastrophe should be used in public engagement exercises(to counteract the moral hazard argument, to some extent), which is a rather dubious option.We are led to believe that using the Plan B metaphor can persuade people to embrace PlanA—namely climate change mitigation. As Corner, Parkhill, and Pidgeon (2011) point out:

But presenting geoengineering to people as a possible response to a climatic emergency is problem-atic, especially if linked to the need to conduct research at an early stage: It provides a very strongframing of necessity, which is likely to have artificially enhanced the acceptability of conductingresearch into these technologies. (p. 11)

The Plan B metaphor, used quite often in conjunction with the argument from catastrophe, is asflawed as the argument itself, as highlighted by Gardiner (2011a). He argues that the Plan B fram-ing will divert attention from Plan A, namely carbon reductions and asks why geoengineeringis seen as a “good” plan B, as opposed to other possible Plan Bs. Focusing on this plan aloneblinkers societal imagination.

The Plan B metaphor is also used in the title of an anonymous article for Petroleum Economistpublished in October 2009, which quotes Shepherd as saying:

It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions we are headedfor a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geoengineering will be the only optionleft to limit further temperature increases. (“Climate change: Is there a plan B?,” 2009)

The LexisNexis corpus ends with references to various books on geoengineering, showingthat the topic had come of age by the end of 2010. Fred Pearce (2010) reviews Fleming’s(2010a) book Fixing the Sky for New Scientist. John Shepherd (2010) reviews two books for NewScientist: one by Jeff Goodell (2010), How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering the AudaciousQuest to Fix Earth’s Climate, the other by Eli Kintisch (2010), Hack the Planet: Science’s BestHope—or Worst Nightmare—for Averting Climate Catastrophe. In this review article, Shepherd(2010) refers to media coverage of geoengineering after the release of the Royal Society reportand summarises it like this:

On the one hand, there is the view that geoengineering is the quick-and-easy fix to all our climatetroubles; on the other, we find a picture of mad scientists destroying the world. Unfortunately, bothnarratives have marketable traction. (p. 46)

As Buck (2010a) has shown in her extensive study of traditional and online media coverage ofgeoengineering, there is some truth in this assertion. However, as we have seen, mad scientistsdestroying the Earth are far outnumbered by some real scientists using the argument from catas-trophe in conjunction with a range of mainly technological/cybernetic and medical analogies toargue that geoengineering may perhaps be the only option humanity has to “save the planet.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 141

SUMMARY

Overall then, in this small corpus we found one master argument, according to whichgeoengineering is the only option to avoid a planetary catastrophe. This is linked more or lessdirectly to two main metaphors according to which geoengineering is the only Plan B we haveand the only insurance policy we have for this planet. Alongside this master argument andrelated metaphors we found various metaphors which can all be related to one conceptual mastermetaphor or master frame according to which the earth is a machine or cybernetic system (e.g.,car, heating system, computer) that is broken but can be fixed (“THE PLANET IS A MACHINE”).On the other hand, older metaphors also framed the earth or planet as a person suffering fromsunstroke and in need of a sunscreen or sunshade, related to the conceptual metaphor “THEPLANET IS A BODY.”

Together with these metaphors, scientists also deployed a variety of analogies which wentbeyond the master argument and the master metaphor and were more nuanced and reflective insome way. Most of these analogies tie in with a well-established conceptual metaphor accordingto which the earth or the planet is a patient that needs to be “saved” or “THE PLANET IS APATIENT.” In the context of geoengineering, the patient is conceptualised as being ill because ofover-indulgence in or over-consumption of, even addiction to, carbon. The implication of such ametaphor is a moral obligation to help this “patient” and end its suffering.

The two conceptual metaphors “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE” and “THE PLANET IS ABODY/PATIENT” are themselves metaphorically and conventionally linked in (mostly deter-ministic and reductionist) philosophical, scientific and biomedical discourse (“THE BODY IS AMACHINE”) and through conceptualising the planet/body as a complex adaptive system.

In summary, the corpus revealed one master argument (The earth is seriously/catastrophicallybroken/ill and can only be fixed/healed by geoengineering) which was linked to three concep-tual master metaphors: “THE PLANET IS A BODY,” “THE PLANET IS A MACHINE,” “THEPLANET IS A PATIENT.” The Persuasive force of this discourse emerges from a fusion of themaster-argument with the master-metaphors. It exploits what Beck (1992, p. 24) called “the polit-ical potential of catastrophes.” It should be stressed however that this is the result of a very smalland very specific sample of media articles and that scientists at large working on geoengineeringor reflecting on its social and ethical impact may not use the argument from catastrophe inthis way.

METAPHORS AND ARGUMENTS OF DISCONTENT

As one can expect from trade journals, the overall framing of geoengineering is positive.However, one can also find some metaphors that frame geoengineering more negatively. Despitethe dominant use of positive frames in relation to geoengineering, even a minority of negativemetaphors can shape social thinking in radically diverse and potentially dilemmatic ways (Jaspal& Nerlich, in press). This highlights the theoretical importance of exploring empirical “out-liers” of this kind, which is fully compatible with qualitative approaches (Lyons & Coyle, 2007).Geoengineering is depicted in terms of as “Playing with fire,” “Pie in the sky,” as a “Band-Aid used to give governments more time” (linked to the “buying time” argument discussed in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

142 NERLICH AND JASPAL

Gardiner, 2011a, 2011b), as “Playing God with the elements” (Fleming, 2007) and so on (espe-cially in the New Scientist part of the corpus). The cybernetic control metaphor of the thermostatis criticised by pointing out that “There is not a single global thermostat” (David Santillo, asquoted in Brahic, 2009a, p. 9).

Questions are also framed metaphorically and playfully: “What happens if we tinker, thenchange our minds” (Brahic, 2009a, p. 10); “The great white hope or verging on the lunaticfringe?” (“Are climate schemes barmy or brilliant?,” 2009, p. 26). Some point out thatgeoengineering is “not a silver bullet” (“Royal Society evaluates geoengineering schemes,” 2009,p. 27), “not a magic bullet” (Howell, 2010), a metaphor first used in the context of health careby Paul Ehrlich about a century ago (see Washer, 2011, p. 30). Others argued that it is “a figleaf” (Howell, 2010), and is a “gamble,” a metaphor used several times in early 2010 by PhilipRasch, a climate scientist and a laboratory fellow at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory(Sands, 2010). Using the newest of the metaphors, a New Scientist article points out that “Wehack the climate at our peril” (“Ancient volcanoes drained ocean of oxygen,” 2010). And finally,one can even find a negatively framed analogy in our corpus, created not by a scientist but byU.S. politician Bob Inglis:

“It is a little bit like padding a car to avoid injuries from a drunken driver,” Inglis said. “Maybe whatyou should do is stop people from [driving drunk] rather than putting pads on the car.” (Sands, 2010)

Outside this corpus negative framing is beginning to appear in various online publications,mainly linked to anti-geoengineering groups, such as Hands off Mother Earth (http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org), or techno-sceptical groups such as the ETC, who brought out a doc-ument entitled Geopiracy in 2010 (ETC Group, 2010). Both are now active in critiquing theSPICE project mentioned at the beginning of this article.

DISCUSSION

In the small corpus of trades articles studied here, metaphors, analogies and arguments weremainly used to frame geoengineering as a last resort technology that has to be adopted in acontext of impending catastrophe (see appendix for a summary of the metaphors identified inthe article). Most of this rhetorical framing occurred in quotes from scientists, especially thosebelonging to the so-called “Geoclique.” Dissenting metaphors and arguments were only rarelyused towards the end of our sample period, suggesting a more consensual use of metaphor in ear-lier media representations of geoengineering. Over time, some metaphors changed. Arguments(especially the master argument from catastrophe) stayed the same but were used to convincedistinct implicit audiences (initially members of industry and politicians, later the “general pub-lic”) that geoengineering is practically the only option for “saving the planet.” Thus, while thesubstantive content of the metaphors remain the same, their social functions evolve.

If framing climate as catastrophe can lead to demoralisation and fatalism among pol-icy makers and within society (Hulme, 2008a, 2009), then using the catastrophe frame to“sell” geoengineering to the masses seems equally doomed to failure. The geoengineeringmetaphors and arguments found in this corpus therefore seem to be closing down debates aboutgeoengineering and, in the process, debates about climate change mitigation, rather than openingthem up (Stirling, 2008). This is largely coterminous with the related argument that religious

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 143

metaphors surrounding climate science can stifle political debate (Nerlich, 2010). This rhetoriclimits social and ethical reflection on the issue of geoengineering by implicitly establishing theboundaries of “legitimate” debate.

The problem with most of the metaphors used in the context of geoengineering is that they arecouched in a language that says: if you want to live, survive, save humanity, the only option is toengage in geoengineering; if not you will die, humanity will not survive. These could be called“metaphors we live by” or “metaphors we survive by.” However, when looking more closely atthe options for achieving this ‘survival’ through geoengineering, it becomes increasingly clearthat implementing them may arguably contribute to the extermination of our species, as wereplace a rather messy anthropogenic climate catastrophe with a more systematically controlledand technologically advanced anthropogenic climate catastrophe. The metaphors can thereforealso be seen as “metaphors we die by” (Romaine, 1996).

This metaphorical ambiguity or tipping point seems to have been grasped by some scien-tists who therefore, consciously or unconsciously, supplement the argument from catastrophewith metaphors and analogies of healing and medicine, as did Sir Paul Nurse, the Presidentof the Royal Society, when writing a letter in support of a geoengineering feasibility study:“Geoengineering research can be considered analogous to pharmaceutical research” (Nurse,2011).

The problem is that the restorative discourse cannot shift the metaphors-we-die-by framing tothe metaphors-we-live-by framing as easily as that, as healing and medicine are directly linked toillness, medical failure and death as well as medical quackery. Healing or restorative metaphorsfor geoengineering can therefore be easily subverted by saying, for example, that geoengineeringis like liposuction for the planet (Adam Corner, personal communication), while others mightagree with Wood (2009): “It is not even like fighting obesity with liposuction: it’s like fightingobesity with a corset, and a diet of lard and doughnuts. Should the corset ever come off, theflab would burst out as if the corset had never been there at all.” In short, metaphor use is notalways clearly delineated, which highlights the possibility of slippage between one conceptualor discourse metaphor and another.

This article demonstrates the potential clout of metaphor use in shaping social, political andpsychological meaning-making vis-à-vis geoengineering as a means of coping with what isincreasingly regarded as the “threat of climate change.” Recently, campaigners have begun tomobilise against geoengineering and it remains to be seen whether their metaphorical framingswill re-set the public agenda and how it might differ from the framings of scientists describedin the present paper. In any case, the power of metaphor to influence political debate and publicunderstanding firmly attests to the validity of Romaine’s (1996, p. 192) assertion that “it mat-ters which metaphors we choose to live by. If we choose unwisely or fail to understand theirimplications, we will die by them.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank James Fleming who first suggested the idea of writing something aboutgeoengineering under the title “Metaphors We Die by” back in December 2010. Holly Buck,Adam Corner, Nelya Koteyko, and Amanda Porter provided useful and constructive comments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

144 NERLICH AND JASPAL

on earlier versions of the article. We are grateful to the ESRC for their financial support of projectRES-360-25-0068.

REFERENCES

Ancient volcanoes drained ocean of oxygen. (2010, February 7). New Scientist, p. 16.Are climate schemes barmy or brilliant? (2010, July 31). ENDS Report, 414, 26–27.Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage.Bonnheim, N. B. (2010). History of climate engineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(6),

891–897.Bipartisan Policy Center. (2011). Task force on Climate Remediation Research: Geoengineering: A national strategic

plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technolo-gies. Retrieved from http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Climate%20Remediation%20Final%20Report.pdf

Brahic, C. (2009a, February 28). Earth’s Plan B: We may soon have no choice but to fiddle with the climate—but are weready? New Scientist, pp. 8–10.

Brahic, C. (2009b, March 21). Give us clarity on climate targets. New Scientist, pp. 6–7.Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype: Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.Buck, H. (2010a). What can geoengineering do for us? Public participation and the new media landscape. Retrieved

from http://www.umt.edu/ethics/EthicsGeoengineering/Workshop/articles1/Holly%20Buck.pdfBuck, H. (2010b). Framing geoengineering in the media: Spectacle, tragedy, solution? Retrieved from http://osdir.com/

ml/attachments/pdftsJhVf5vEl.pdfBurr, M. T. (2007, February). Climate panic button: Ecology scientist Ken Caldeira sheds light on some radical ideas for

fighting global warming. Public Utilities Fortnightly, pp. 18–19.Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010a). Identifying metaphors in discourse data. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.),

Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp. 97–115).London, UK: Equinox.

Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010b). What is metaphor and why does it matter. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.),Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp. 3–25). London,UK: Equinox.

Chandler, D. L. (2007, July 21). A sunshade for the planet: If we can’t stop global warming, as a last resort, researchersare devising ways to cool the planet by shading it from the sun. New Scientist, pp. 42–45.

Climate change: Is there a plan B? (2009, October 1). Petroleum Economist.Cohen, D. (2004). Arguments and metaphors in philosophy. New York, NY: University Press of America.Cohen, M. J. (2011). Is the UK preparing for “war”? Military metaphors, personal carbon allowances, and consumption

rationing in historical perspective. Climatic Change, 104, 199–222.Corner, A., Parkhill, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Experiment earth: Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering.

Working Paper, University of Cardiff, Wales.Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2010) Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environment:

Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 52(1), 24–37.Crutzen, P. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?

Climatic Change, 77, 211–219.David, L. (2007, September). Climate change: A geoengineering fix? Aerospace America, p. 32.ETC Group. (2010). Geopiracy: The case against geoengineering [Report]. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217Fleming, J. R. (2006). The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype.

Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 37(1), 3–25.Fleming, J. R. (2007). The climate engineers: Playing God to save the planet. Wilson Quarterly, Spring, 46–60.Fleming, J. R. (2010a). Fixing the sky. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Fleming, J. R. (2010b). Manufacturing the weather. Retrieved from http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/magazine/

articles/28-2-manufacturing-the-weather.aspx

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 145

Gardiner, S. M. (2010). Is “arming the future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethicsof intentionally manipulating the climate system. In S. Gardiner, S. Caney, D. Jamieson, & H. Shue (Eds.), Climateethics: Essential readings. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from folk.uio.no/gasheim/Gar2010b.pdf

Gardiner, S. M. (2011a). A perfect moral storm: The ethical challenge of climate change. Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gardiner, S. M. (2011b). Some early ethics of geoengineering: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society Report.Environmental Values, 20, 163–188.

Goodell, J. (2010). How to cool the planet: Geoengineering and the audacious quest to fix earth’s climate. New York,NY: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.

Grundmann, R., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2010). The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. CriticalApproaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 4(2), 125–146.

Howell, K. (2010, February 5). Climate: Scientists call for interagency geoengineering research program. Environmentand Energy Daily.

Hulme, M. (2008a). The conquering of climate: Discourses of fear and their dissolution. The Geographical Journal,174(1), 5–16.

Hulme, M. (2008b). Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers, 33(1), 5–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1475–5661.2007.00289.x

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Hulme, M., & Turnpenny, J. (2004). Understanding and managing climate change: The UK experience. The

Geographical Journal, 170, 105–115.Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (in press). When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of

climate change in 1988. Public Understanding of Science.Jones, N. (2000, September 23). Sunblock. New Scientist, p. 2828.Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25,

245–284.Kintisch, E. (2010). Hack the planet: Science’s best hope—or worst nightmare—for averting climate catastrophe.

London, UK: Wiley.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Leiserowitz, A. (2010, March). Geoengineering and climate change in the public mind. Paper presented at the Asilomar

International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, Pacific Grove, CA.Life after Copenhagen. (2009, December 12). New Scientist.Lyons, E., & Coyle, A. (Eds.). (2010). Qualitative data in psychology. London, UK: Sage.Marchetti, C. (1977). On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climatic Change, 1(1), 59–69.Mercer, A. M., Keith, D. W., & Sharp, J. D. (2011). Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environmental

Research Letters, 6(044006), 1–9.Natural Environment Research Council. (2011, September 14). The SPICE project: A geoengineering feasibility study

[Press Release]. Swindon, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2011/22-spice.aspNelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3),

221–246Nerlich, B. (2010). “Climategate”: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values, 19, 419–442.Nerlich, B., & Halliday, C. (2007). Avian flu: The creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the

media. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(1), 46–65.Nurse, P. (2011). Letters: I hope we never need geoengineering, but we must research it. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/08/geoengineering-research-royal-societyPearce, F. (2010, August 21). The hokum and hubris of geoengineering our climate. New Scientist, p. 49.Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Romaine, S. (1996). War and peace in the global greenhouse: Metaphors we die by. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11,

175–194.Royal Society evaluates geoengineering schemes. (2009, September 30). ENDS Report, 416, 27.Sands, D. (2010, February 8). Scientists offer House exotic options to help reduce greenhouse-gas levels. Inside Energy

(p. 12).Schneider, S. H. (1996). Geoengineering: Could or should we do it? Climatic Change, 33, 291–302.Schneider, S. H. (2008). Geoengineering: Could we or should we make it work? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society. A, 366(1882), 3843–3862.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

146 NERLICH AND JASPAL

Shepherd, J. (2009, September 5). Do mention the ‘G’ word: Fears that the mere mention of geoengineering mightundermine support for emissions reductions appear to be unfounded. New Scientist, pp. 24–25.

Shepherd, J. (2010, May 15). How to fix the planet—without the catchphrases: Geoengineering offers plenty of ideas forcombatting global warming, but we have to stop over-simplifying them. New Scientist, p. 46.

Shepherd, J., Caldeira, K., Haigh, J., Keith, D., Launder, B., Mace, G., . . . Watson, A. (2009). Geoengineering theclimate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London, UK: The Royal Society.

Stilgoe, J. (2011). A question of intent. Nature Climate Change, 1, 325–326.Stirling, A. (2008). Opening up and closing down: Power, participation and pluralism. Science Technology and Human

Values, 33(2), 262–294.Teller, E. (1997, October 17). The planet needs a sunscreen. Wall Street Journal.To hack the planet, first win trust. (2010, March 4). Editorial. New Scientist, p. 2754.Washer, P. (2011). Emerging infectious diseases and society. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Washington, H., & Cook, N. (2011). Climate change denial. London, UK: Earthscan.Wood, G. (2009). Re-engineering the climate. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

archive/2009/07/re-engineering-the-earth/7552Zinken, J., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2008). Discourse metaphors. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez

(Eds.), Body, language and mind (pp. 363–386). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

APPENDIX

Master Argument: Argument From Catastrophe

If emissions continue to rise, we face global catastrophe and geoengineering might be the onlyoption left to avert it.

Master Conceptual Metaphors

Based on three pervasive mappings, based on the personification of the planet:

“THE PLANET IS A MACHINE” (car, heating system, computer)Linked to the following discourse metaphors:“Geoengineering is fixing the Planet”“Geoengineering is repairing the Planet”“Geoengineering is manipulating the Planet’s thermostat”“Geoengineering is hacking the Planet”

“THE PLANET IS A BODY”Linked to the following discourse metaphors:“Geoengineering is building a sunshade for the Planet”“Geoengineering is applying Suncream/sunblock/sunscreen to the planet”

“THE PLANET IS A PATIENT/ADDICT”Linked to the following discourse metaphors:“Geoengineering is applying medical treatment to the planet”“Geoengineering is Curing the planet’s addiction”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3

METAPHORS WE DIE BY? 147

Older Conceptual Metaphors

“DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING IS WAR”“SCIENCE IS A JOURNEY”

Other Metaphors or Clichés

Plan BEscape routeLast resortInsurance policyAnd some mixtures of mechanic and organic metaphors

Overarching Metaphor and Argument

The planet (as a body/machine) is critically/catastrophically broken/ill and can only befixed/healed by geoengineering.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

10:

03 1

3 M

arch

201

3